# Minor Details that Annoy You in Fiction
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [June 3, 2013, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016 "2013-06-03T09:13:44Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/81 "2013-06-04T14:45:38Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#):
>
> What I mean is, while Grand Central Station is wrong, would Grand Central station be correct?
In a technical sense, yes, a terminal is a station. Most people won’t even care if you call it Grand Central Station, with or without the capitalization, but to a lot of New Yawkers, it’s like “Frisco” to a San Franciscan. It’s up to you whether using the correct term matters. A writer who gives a shit about his craft should never, ever use “Grand Central Station” as the name, though.
---
### Author:  [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/82 "2013-06-04T15:01:04Z")
One thing that mildly irritates me when I see it in 19th century literature is when the author obscures the date, but does a lousy job at it.
For instance, I read one book where they referred to the year as “18–” in one place, “187-” in another place and “1870” in a third place.
Similarly, I’m reading another book where they refer to the date as “18–”, one year before the Battle of Waterloo (no one will ever figure out when that occurred, of course).
---
### Author:  [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/83 "2013-06-04T15:18:51Z")
Astronomically impossible depictions of the Moon. Like having a solar eclipse the day after a full moon. Or having the crescent moon in the evening point the wrong way (for anyone in the northern hemisphere). Or in general, having the phase of the moon not fit the time it supposedly rises or sets.
---
### Author:  [@Speak\_to\_me\_Maddie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speak_to_me_Maddie)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/84 "2013-06-04T15:37:22Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#):
>
> I don’t know - would it? I go to an Anglican church (same brand, different label AFAIK) and I never saw anyone do confession. I would bow to contrary experience if anyone has any.
I’m a lifelong Anglican too. Confession and Absolution are rare in the Anglican tradition, but they are around. It really depends what branch your parish tends toward. Evangelicals usually accept two sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist) where Anglo-Catholics accept seven (Baptism, Eucharist, Matrimony, Confirmation, Ordination, Unction, and Confession). Even in strongly Anglo-Catholic parishes I’ve found confession and absolution to be rare. My priest offers it, but says it should be reserved only for the most life-damaging sins. I’ve never done it, but others from my parish do.
---
### Author:  [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/85 "2013-06-04T15:53:05Z")
> [@Speak\_to\_me\_Maddie](#):
>
> Including the common mistake of calling it Grand Central Station. It isn’t a station, it is Grand Central Terminal.
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#):
>
> In a technical sense, yes, a terminal is a station. Most people won’t even care if you call it Grand Central Station, with or without the capitalization, but to a lot of New Yawkers, it’s like “Frisco” to a San Franciscan. It’s up to you whether using the correct term matters. A writer who gives a shit about his craft should never, ever use “Grand Central Station” as the name, though.
Except thats what you will hear most people call it. In New York City. Where it is. And it was once called Grand Central Station. So if it is mentioned as part of the third person narrative it would be wrong to call it a station. But if it is coming from a character I would see no problem with someone calling it Grand Central Station. I’ve been there many times. When I think of it I always think Grand Central Station.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/86 "2013-06-04T16:20:41Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> Are you sure it was WW1? There were wars in the 1890s. The Spanish-American war or the Philippine-American war would fit for an American. The Boer War would fit for a Brit.
The war was in Europe. Even the wars you mention would leave her a decade short. I tried every other war I could think of and none of them fit the context, which could only describe an American heading for the new war in 1917 or 1918.
---
### Author:  [@Myron\_Van\_Horowitzski](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myron_Van_Horowitzski)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/87 "2013-06-04T16:34:17Z")
In Kage Baker’s _The Company_ series, the botanist Mendoza finds a rare species of holly: _Ilex tormentosa_.
There’s no such word as tormentosa. It’s tomentosa, which comes from the Latin word for wooly. It’s not a typo either, it was repeated several times in the first book and also in following books.
It’s nitpicky, but I figure if you’re going to be pedantic enough to use binomial nomenclature, you should get it right.
---
### Author:  [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/88 "2013-06-04T16:39:10Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#):
>
> On a related note, no American would say a _sachet of ketchup_; we have _packets of ketchup_. _Sachet_ seems to be a mostly British thing.
Wow. I doubt that even one person in my acquaintance has ever heard the word _sachet_ before. It simply does not exist in American English, in any context.
---
### Author:  [@tullsterx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tullsterx)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/89 "2013-06-04T16:43:14Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#):
>
> In Star Trek: Into Darkness…
>
> As soon as they said the fuel tanks were removed from the torpedoes to make room for the cryo-pods, I thought, “Well, those aren’t going anywhere…” and that just made Sulu’s whole “72 TORPEDOES! DO NOT TEST ME!” speech even more pathetic.
But Sulu said that before they knew about those. . .
---
### Author:  [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/90 "2013-06-04T16:43:32Z")
In at least two of his books (\*The Stand \*being one, and I think _The Dead Zone_ is another), Stephen King describes a ring a male character is wearing. In both cases, the rings are MASSIVE - the stones in each ring stick out from the character’s hand by two or three inches.
I don’t know if Steve ever stopped to actually measure that, but I’m fairly certain nobody (with the possible exception of Liberace) ever wore a ring that large - certainly not the Joe Schmoes who were sporting them in the books. If nothing else, it would make everyday actions such as putting your hands in your pockets impossible, and something like wiping sweat off your brow with the back of your hand could land you in the hospital with a concussion.
---
### Author:  [@Victor\_Charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victor_Charlie)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/91 "2013-06-04T16:44:57Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> In their defense, if this is a defense, they’re not trying to get it right. You can tell they’re writing these scenes so they have the fewest characters and the most drama they can. News in movies or TV is rarely written properly either because it’s just there to advance the plot or sum up a character’s problems.
Sure, but movies that are SPECIFICALLY about newscasts should at least get the small details right. If you did a movie about plumbers it would be pretty dumb if he was using an axe to fix a toilet leak.
---
### Author:  [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/92 "2013-06-04T16:45:42Z")
> [@Diceman](#):
>
> Wow. I doubt that even one person in my acquaintance has ever heard the word _sachet_ before. It simply does not exist in American English, in any context.
It’s common enough when referring to a pouch of herbs like lavender, worn tucked in the bra or other undergarment. But as I doubt anyone much under about 70 has ever done that, the term could be considered obsolete here.
---
### Author:  [@Victor\_Charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victor_Charlie)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/93 "2013-06-04T16:48:10Z")
> [@Diceman](#):
>
> Wow. I doubt that even one person in my acquaintance has ever heard the word _sachet_ before. It simply does not exist in American English, in any context.
Sure it does. My grandmother is quite fond of potpourri and many of the pouches are labeled as sachets.
(Looks like Amateur beat me to it.)
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/94 "2013-06-04T16:56:16Z")
> [@Sauron](#):
>
> In at least two of his books (\*The Stand \*being one, and I think _The Dead Zone_ is another), Stephen King describes a ring a male character is wearing. In both cases, the rings are MASSIVE - the stones in each ring stick out from the character’s hand by two or three inches.
>
> I don’t know if Steve ever stopped to actually measure that, but I’m fairly certain nobody (with the possible exception of Liberace) ever wore a ring that large - certainly not the Joe Schmoes who were sporting them in the books. If nothing else, it would make everyday actions such as putting your hands in your pockets impossible, and something like wiping sweat off your brow with the back of your hand could land you in the hospital with a concussion.
_Of course_ it’s **Sauron** who complaints about guys wearing unreasonably large rings. This kind of made my day.
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#):
>
> Sure, but movies that are SPECIFICALLY about newscasts should at least get the small details right. If you did a movie about plumbers it would be pretty dumb if he was using an axe to fix a toilet leak.
I don’t disagree, really. Sometimes those things bother me, too. It’s just that you can see it’s not the priority for the people writing the show or movie.
---
### Author:  [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/95 "2013-06-04T17:02:44Z")
> [@Sauron](#):
>
> In at least two of his books (\*The Stand \*being one, and I think _The Dead Zone_ is another), Stephen King describes a ring a male character is wearing. In both cases, the rings are MASSIVE - the stones in each ring stick out from the character’s hand by two or three inches.
Two or three inches and that “stone” better be made out of lollipop/sucker material.
---
### Author:  [@delphica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/delphica)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/96 "2013-06-04T17:30:23Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#):
>
> This is what made my nuts about Stephen King’s 11/22/63. The main character is supposed to be 35, just a few years older than myself, and his pop culture knowledge is rooted almost completely in the late 70s, which is before he would have been born. I’m not saying it’s impossible for someone to love the pop culture of someone else’s generation, but the main character had literally no connection to any piece of pop culture created after 1979.
SO TRUE. This kept taking me out of the book, which I otherwise enjoyed. The main character is supposed to be a few years _younger_ than me, but his entire frame of reference was much more similar to my dad’s. Coincidentally, my dad and Stephen King are about the same age. Go figure.
Agreed that it wasn’t simply a case of a younger guy being more interested in the pop culture of a previous generation, it was a incredible lack of ANY indication that the character was my peer.
---
### Author:  [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/97 "2013-06-04T17:36:22Z")
> [@Intergalactic\_Gladiator](#):
>
> I was just thinking about something similar to this. This isn’t really in one piece of fiction, it’s more like a trope, but when someone is so desperate that they have to run into a Catholic church to pray. It’s never a Protestant church or anything else, and the priest is always _right there_ standing by ready to give a helpful piece of advice. It’s like TV and movie priests spend all their time hanging out near the altar just ready for some desperate hero to come in out of the rain, they’re never in the rectory, visiting a sick parishioner in the hospital, or doing anything else.
In Hollywood, all Christians are Catholics. Unless you’re black, in which case you’re Baptist.
---
### Author:  [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/98 "2013-06-04T17:42:29Z")
This wasn’t published writing, it comes from a peer in a college writing course I took, but a classic example of failing to visualize what one’s character is doing that always stuck with me. A male character is lounging against a doorway at a party. Holding a six-pack of beer cans in one hand, he pulls one loose and pops the top open, while casually lighting a cigarette.
“Maybe he’s a Hindu god,” someone in the class guessed. 🙂
I can’t remember the name of the novel, but a glaring error that always stuck in my head occurred in one of those military potboilers dashed off by some retired military guy. The guy was Air Force, and had painfully constructed some plot in which a US forward air base in the Gulf region is under threat from an Iranian amphibious landing across the Strait of Hormuz. For plot reasons I don’t remember (but obviously to create a scenario where a dastardly President would leave Good Americans to die), the Americans cannot be _seen_ by the Soviets to be attacking the rusty fleet of freighters the Iranians are using. It’s perfectly okay to _fight_ the Iranians, but the Air Force guys cannot bomb the ships because Soviet satellites _witnessing_ it would somehow be worse.
Anyway, the author has his characters moan and groan about how there’s no way to save the lives of the airmen at the base because anything flying will be _visible_, and _there’s no way to sink a defenseless merchant ship from an unseen platform_, so we’ll just have to take our lumps.
Guess all those billions we spent on submarines were wasted, huh?
It would be a simple matter – even if not technically true – to include a single throwaway sentence like “It’s too bad our subs can’t operate in those shallows, Mr. President,” or “The Sultan has absolutely forbidden us to use submarines for fear any torpedoings will scare away vital oil tanker traffic,” or what have you. but there’s nothing in the book referring to submarines at all – it’s clear the author, a former Air Force pilot, is preoccupied with airpower, and simply _forgot_ about submarines.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/99 "2013-06-04T17:43:16Z")
> [@Diceman](#):
>
> Wow. I doubt that even one person in my acquaintance has ever heard the word _sachet_ before. It simply does not exist in American English, in any context.
Sure it does, as in a “_sachet of lavender, placed in a drawer_”.
What bugs me is smoking. Honestly, I know Big Tobacco bribed publishers etc with ad money in the past (to the point where some editors added in “He lit up a cigarette” into crazy places like space travel, this was John Campbell’s sin, too), but that’s over isn’t it? Sure, a few dudes still smoke. But nearly everyone craps, takes a pee, etc, and they aren’t mentioned.
It’s outdated and it was bought & paid for. Let’s drop it.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016/100 "2013-06-04T17:46:26Z")
> [@Sauron](#):
>
> In at least two of his books (\*The Stand \*being one, and I think _The Dead Zone_ is another), Stephen King describes a ring a male character is wearing. In both cases, the rings are MASSIVE - the stones in each ring stick out from the character’s hand by two or three inches.
>
> .
Yeah, dude, your little ring was quite a size until it cooled down after they took it after you chopped finger….
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-details-that-annoy-you-in-fiction/660016.md?page=6)